40609Nicoletti.txt. 7 MR. BRUTOCAO: Nicholas Brutocao appearing. 12 Honor. I'm counsel associated with Steve Krause and

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "40609Nicoletti.txt. 7 MR. BRUTOCAO: Nicholas Brutocao appearing. 12 Honor. I'm counsel associated with Steve Krause and"

Joshua Alan Owens
6 years ago
Views:

1 1 1 VENTURA, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, APRIL 6, o0o THE COURT: Nicoletti versus Metrocities 6 Mortgage. 7 MR. BRUTOCAO: Nicholas Brutocao appearing 8 for the defendant Taylor, Bean and Whitaker. 9 MR. KRAUSE: Steve Krause for plaintiff 10 George Nicoletti. 11 MR. NICOLETTI: George Nicoletti, your 12 Honor. I'm counsel associated with Steve Krause and 13 also the plaintiff. 14 THE COURT: The Court's tentative ruling is 15 to overrule the demurrer to the complaint. 16 Does the defendant wish to be heard? 17 MR. BRUTOCAO: Yes, your Honor. On the 18 matter of the injunctive relief pertaining directly 19 to the declaratory relief and how this issue stands 20 in terms of the code section reference THE COURT: MR. BRUTOCAO: Yes, there's no declaratory 23 relief that can exist with this code section. This 24 is a threshold issue that's really a legal one. And 25 then there's no source or authority in the code as 26 the plaintiff has argued it pertains to the 27 situations. 28 THE COURT: Well -- Page 1

2 2 1 MR. BRUTOCAO: The plain reading is clear 2 that that's not what the purpose of this code section 3 was established for. It was merely done -- the code 4 section , which plaintiff refers to, was 5 enacted as a safe harbor for the servicer against 6 their investor in the event that they would like -- 7 THE COURT: Well, this interpretation of is still in case law limbo, in that there's no 9 appellate authority as to the interpretation of this 10 particular Civil Code Section And the Court's conclusion at this time is 12 that this section does require a lending institution 13 to exercise a good faith attempt to avoid 14 foreclosure. And whether or not the defendant 15 engaged in such a good faith effort really involves a 16 factual issue that can't be determined at the 17 pleading stage. 18 So, therefore, it's the Court's conclusion 19 that while this issue needs to be addressed from a 20 factual standpoint, and ultimately we will need 21 appellate authority for guidance in the trial court, 22 at this juncture the Court will overrule the demurrer 23 and MR. NICOLETTI: Your Honor, if I may, 25 section sets out the guideline to the notice 26 of default at the notice of sale. 27 MR. BRUTOCAO: Those statutorily were 28 adhered to in this case. The only issue regarding 3 Page 2

3 1 the intent of this act, legislation is the question 2 if And it's very clear from that section in 3 that it's set out in the very first section , 4 section A, that the intent is to help servicers when 5 dealing with a potential lawsuit by their investors, 6 not that it would create a private action for the 7 borrower. 8 Then going back again to , that just 9 sets out the requirement of what needs to be 10 contained in the notice of default and the notice of 11 sale, and those were adhered to in this case. 12 THE COURT: All right. Plaintiff wish to be 13 heard? 14 MR. NICOLETTI: Yes, your Honor. The 15 allegations are such that they're factual allegations 16 in the complaint. Number 12A through J, they're all 17 factual allegations to oppose that declaration and to 18 oppose the way that that declaration was made, in 19 both the notice of default, as well as the notice of 20 trustee sale. Basically, it's a factual case, your 21 Honor. And it's basically a case that we don't have 22 any guidance, you're correct, from the appellate 23 court at this time. We'd like to have some guidance, 24 and that's the reason we're here, frankly, on this 25 case. 26 MR. BRUTOCAO: Your Honor, with all due 27 respect to the plaintiff, as it's set out in , 28 what it precisely required by the legislation was 4 Page 3

4 1 contained in all the necessary documents. The only 2 question which plaintiff can make in terms of what's 3 been their interpretation, again, the Just 4 by reading that section, you can see that in and of 5 itself it applies by the way it's set up to the 6 interaction of servicers and their investors. 7 There's nothing -- the fact that now 8 borrowers have the ability to mandate that all 9 servicers and money institutions are now required to 10 enter into contracts for loan modifications. 11 THE COURT: Well, at this juncture in this 12 case the Court holds that section was the 13 legislature's attempt to deal with a collapsing 14 mortgage industry, and also to stabilize the market. 15 And the Court's ruling is to overrule the 16 demurrer. Require the defendant to file an answer on 17 or before April 27, And at this juncture with 18 regard to the defendant's request to set aside the 19 Lis Pendens, that request is denied without 20 prejudice. 21 Plaintiff to give notice. 22 MR. NICOLETTI: Yes, we will, your Honor. I 23 was wondering, your Honor, with regard to our request 24 for costs on making the demurrer, we have a letter in 25 Exhibit C that we tried to eliminate the demurrer 26 process with counsel. And we told the counsel, 27 Mr. Malcolm, who was on this case previously to 28 Mr. Moncoto(Phonetic, that it would be expensive to 5 1 oppose this demurrer. Page 4

5 2 We've done a lot of research on it. I 3 actually have the legislative intent service from 4 Woodland that has done the legislative intent on this 5 statute, because we intend to pursue it. And we've 6 spent quite a lot of money in this opposition where 7 we would have liked to have just gone ahead with our 8 case instead of meeting this. 9 We did warn counsel that not only while we 10 did -- we warned him of costs because we stated that 11 we would appeal -- or we would amend our complaint if 12 defense counsel would like us to amend our complaint 13 to the point that it would overcome any demurrer on 14 their side. So we offered to take this demurrer off 15 calendar and we offered that we wouldn't have to 16 appear in front of this Court, and waste the court's 17 time nor waste our own time on this. 18 THE COURT: Well, the Court finds there's a 19 legitimate and unsettled points of law that needs or will need to be addressed by the appellate 21 authority. And at this juncture the Court is not 22 going to, in effect, award sanctions against the 23 defendant for proceeding with the demurrer. Whether 24 or not you, the plaintiff, may want to amend your 25 complaint to more -- to a more focused area for 26 ultimate appellate decisions so that you can, quote, 27 take your best shot, closed quote. It's up to you 28 and the defendant to work out. 6 1 But at this point I'm overruling the 2 demurrer. I'm making the order with regard to filing Page 5

6 3 an answer on or before April 27th. And at this 4 juncture that's all that I'm prepared to do. 5 MR. NICOLETTI: Thank you, your Honor. 6 MR. KRAUSE: Thank you, your Honor. 7 THE COURT: All right. 8 MR. BRUTOCAO: Thank you, your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Thank you. 10 (Proceedings concluded o0o SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA COURTROOM 41 HON. FRED BYSSHE Page 6

7 GEORGE NICOLETTI, Plaintiff, vs. No CU-OR-VTA METROCITIES MORTGAGE, Defendant. REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS MONDAY, APRIL 6, 2009 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff: GEORGE NICOLETTI Attorney at Law ANANDA & KRAUSE BY: STEVEN J. KRAUSE Attorney at Law For Defendant: NICHOLAS A. BRUTOCAO Attorney at Law LISA LEMUS, C.S.R. #11484 Official Reporter 800 South Victoria Avenue Room 313 Ventura, California SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA GEORGE NICOLETTI, Plaintiff, Page 7

8 vs. No CU-OR-VTA METROCITIES MORTGAGE, Defendant. I, LISA LEMUS, CSR #11484, Certified Shorthand Reporter of the state of California, for the County of Ventura, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages 1 through 6 are a full, true and correct transcript of the proceedings had in the above-entitled case on April 6, Dated at Ventura, California, this 9th day of April LISA LEMUS, CSR #11484 Official Reporter *Please Note: Copies of this transcript are not certified and do not conform with the provisions of Government Code Section 69954(d unless they bear the original signature of Lisa Lemus. Page 8

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 3 DEPARTMENT 9 HON. DENISE MOTTER, COMMISSIONER 4 5 CHRISTINE SONTAG, )

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 3 DEPARTMENT 9 HON. DENISE MOTTER, COMMISSIONER 4 5 CHRISTINE SONTAG, ) ) 6 PLAINTIFF, ) ) 7 VS. ) NO. 1381216 ) 8 WILLIAM